Summary and Conclusions
It's normal and reasonable for people and companies to be concerned about unauthorized use of their intellectual property. What is not reasonable and not normal is the way SCO-Caldera is going about protecting its Unix copyrights.
The utter ridiculousness of SCO-Caldera's dictates as to code policing is well-characterized by Richard Stallman's statement:
It is quite clear from the discussions reported here today that the Linux community does have procedures in place to guard against unlicensed code leaking into the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, and some if not all Linux distributions -- contrary to the FUD (fear, doubt, uncertainty) about this that SCO's CEO Darl McBride has been spreading through the media.
Moreover, all McBride and SCO-Caldera need to do in order to get any SCO-owned code removed from the kernel.org Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux OS, or Linux distributions is simply to tell these people what SCO-owned code is in the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux OS, or the Linux distributions. It would be removed immediately, if not sooner. However, McBride refuses to disclose what SCO-owned Unix code is in Linux.
Get this through your head McBride. No one in the Linux community wants your proprietary SCO code in Linux!
Interestingly, once McBride and SCO-Caldera identify the alleged SCO-owned Unix code in the kernel.org Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, and or any Linux distributions it will be removed. That could be a reason that McBride and SCO-Caldera refuse to identify publicly any such alleged code. Once they do, the Linux developers will remove the SCO-Owned code, if any, and McBride and SCO-Caldera no longer will have a rubbery hammer to hang over the heads of the Linux community members and Linux users.
On the other hand, there likely is not any SCO-owned code in the kernel.org Linux kernel or the GNU/Linux operating system. And maybe that is why Darl McBride and SCO-Caldera are refusing to show the alleged code it claims is in Linux publicly. (We do not consider SCO-Caldera's strings-attached offer to show the allegedly purloined code to a private, hand-selected, panel under a DNA to a be bone fide offer to prove anything -- other than SCO-Caldera is acting in bad-faith and cannot be trusted. More about that in an upcoming story.)
Of course as pointed out in last Wednesday's article, Is SCO Trying to Renege on Clearing Linux Kernel ?, SCO has not found its code in the kernel.org Linux kernel or in the GNU/Linux OS. Heck, SCO-Caldera has not even looked at the kernel.org code or the GNU/Linux OS code to see if there is any SCO-owned code there.
SCO's Blake Stowell said last Wednesday:
Until such time as Darl McBride and SCO-Caldera do list publicly the SCO-owned code it claims is in Linux, Darl McBride's and SCO-Caldera's claims that there is SCO-owned Unix code in Linux ought to be ignored and dismissed as FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).
Please see the first two parts of our series about SCO-Caldera's IP claims plus its intentions to enforce and license its intellectual property rights.
Follow the Patents, People, Don Marti, Linux Journal News Notes 6 March 2003.
SCO: Unix code copied into Linux, Stephen Shankland, CNET News.com, May 1, 2003
Linux Buzz: SCO to Reveal Allegedly Copied Code, Don Marti, Linux Journal, 15 May 2003
Microsoft licenses a SCO patent? What patent?, Don Marti, Linux Journal, 19 May 2003
Linux and the GNU Project, By Richard Stallman
UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries
Related MozillaQuest Articles
SCO-Caldera v IBM: